Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!wex
From: wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Subjective Objectivism (again)
Message-ID: <924@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Aug-83 14:04:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: ittvax.924
Posted: Thu Aug 11 14:04:17 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Aug-83 20:22:55 EDT
Lines: 312

In the interest of time and net space, Tom and I have moved our dirty 
laundry to private mail.

Tom has convinced me that he is correct in his assertions that altruism
and selfishness (which I think he is using as synonymous with objectivism
are in fact both moral theories and are opposed, but not necessarily
contradictory.  So far so good.

	From Tom Craver:
	... I have just posted a note in which I point out a 
	contradiction that can arise in any system that 
	attempts to mix the two.  Namely, altruism and 
	selfishness will not always agree on the moral action 
	in a particular circumstance - there will be cases in 
	which the two specify mutually exclusive courses of 
	action.  Any mixture of the two systems will allow 
	internal contradictions.  Resolving these on a case 
	by case basis is no solution.  If one states a 
	general principle of how to choose, the principle 
	will either be arbitrary (on what basis will you 
	decide to choose, since your moral system gives 
	no guidance?  
	
Here Tom has made a logical error which, while small, is still crucial:
he has confused the choice OF a moral system with the choices UNDER a
moral system.  When I am designing the system itself, I need NO
justification for my principles.  ALL moral principles are, at base,
arbitrary, since they ultimately spring from intuition.  (This is a 
separate argument entirely, but I'll debate it if you like.)

	And if the "completed" system is a mixed system 
	itself, the contradiction still exists.)  
	
This is not necessarily so, by any stretch of the imagination.  Of course
it is difficult to do.  That's why Nagel got his Ph.D. for doing it.  I
certainly don't claim to be up to doing it; I just claim that it's possible.

	...or will *always* favor one system over the 
	other when the two conflict (in which case, what 
	is the real difference between the mixed system 
	and the "pure" system?)

The difference is exactly that area covered by the new principle, where
selfishness and altruism were (by themselves) mutually exclusive.  The
resulting system might be quite similar to its "parents," but it's not
the same as either.

	You state "under many philosophies, this is a 
	null statement.  You need to show why this is not 
	so" in reference to human nature being "qualities that
	humans have in common, and which they cannot really 
	change"(me).  I completely disagree - I have stated 
	examples (living creature, rational capability) that 
	you need to refute.  I cannot address "many philosophies" 
	unless you present them.   The burden of disproof now 
	lies with you.  (And to avoid one cycle of notes: when I 
	say "change", I mean "change and remain human", and yes, 
	I am assuming that human life is the fundamental value.)

I'm sorry, I don't understand that collection of fragments.  However, I'll
take a stab at it, based on what I think you mean.  I think you're saying
that "being a living creature" is part of human nature.  I also think that
you're saying "having the capability to reason" is part of human nature.
Now, I think you're also saying that nothing we can do changes this (without
it rendering us not-human).  It is an interesting point as to whether a 
dead person is still a person.  Obviously we each have the ability to
make ourselves dead.  As far as reason goes, I would mildly suggest 
that you look around you.  How many people are being rational how much of
the time?  Or perhaps your definition of rational is different from mine.
Do you consider it irrational to do something which you know is likely to
kill you, and even more likely to leave you in a miserable state for
decades?  If you agree, then you'll agree with me that smokers are irrational.
Do you think that it is irrational to produce wastes that will be deadly for
over two hundred thousand years?  Then you agree with me that the nuclear
industry, and nuclear weapons makers are irrational.  I could go on and on,
but I think you get the point:  the vast majority of the human race is
irrational, and is making no effort towards rationality.

	You state that my quote "One aspect of the human 
	mind is that it is independently conscious" is a 
	"Null statement."  As support you claim that 
	"eastern masters *claim* [emphasis added] to have 
	reached..." Nirvana, which you describe as "the 
	loss (or submergence) of the individual 
	consciousness".  Need I point out that hearsay 
	evidence is not acceptable?  

Why do you consider it unacceptable?  Your use of the term hearsay indicates
that you think these accounts unreliable.  Why do you think this?  What
evidence do you have that these persons are lying?  You need to show why
their testimony is inadmissible.  

However, there is another (more important) issue here:  I can no more "prove"
that the human experience of ego is not inescapable than you can "prove"
that it IS inescapable.  The point is that other philosophies exist which
claim the opposite of what you claim.  It is up to you to show why your
claim is more beleivable.

	As to your claim that "I myself ... have come 
	close", I would have to know what you mean by 
	close (this isnt horseshoes or hand grenades!) 
	Do you mean that you can *nearly* enter the 
	state where you can "read" the conscious minds 
	of those around you?  
	
I made no claim of "reading" anything.  Please stop quoting things that I
didn't say.  I also made no comment about other minds.  What I claimed was
that I had come close to losing the sensation of individual consciousness.
By close, I mean that feeling one has when, for example, a name is "on the
tip of your tongue," but you can't recall it.  You know that you are "close."
If you have never had this sensation, then I cannot explain to you what I 
mean.

	Or just that you can *nearly* lose consciousness?  
	I would point out that I can do the latter with a 
	rock!

Now who's baiting whom?  This is not what I meant, but perhaps I expected too
much background knowledge on your part.  So:  There is an experience which
most humans seem to have.  That experience is the thought of "I"-ness, which
leads one to believe that one's mind exists within the universe, yet in some
way, you can model the universe within your mind.  This model necessarily
includes your mind, which contains a model which includes your mind which...
An infinite regress.  The state of Nirvana (a mental state) is one in which
the separation of the I from the universe is removed.  The sensations associated
with a central "ego" (not in the Freudian sense) are lost, and other
sensations are experienced.  I confess that I don't know what those sensations
are.  Now do you understand the term?

	Even if you *could* change this aspect of your 
	consciousness (and I do not accept that), what 
	about the rest of your mind - for example the 
	*ability* of your mind to be rational - how do 
	you go about cutting that out while preserving 
	human life - the *capability* is hardwired into 
	the brain.

How do you get to make this claim?  What evidence do you have for ANYTHING
being hardwired into the brain?

	...I also noted Russia's "opposition to 
	self-interested actions".  Do you see 
	how this is exactly altruism, in a concrete 
	example? This is not an "imaginary motive", 
	but the *stated* motive of the Soviets.

You are correct: those are the stated motives of the Soviets.  Which brings
me back to my original argument of "good intentions, bad executions."  The
Soviets are internally hypocritical from the word GO, and so their stated
motives have no force.  The Soviet constitution also contains 'guarantees
of free speech.'  Does that make them defenders of free speech?  Of course
not.  Actions are what concerns me (with regard to the Soviets as example),
not words.  However, I admit I do not know what the real motives of the 
Kremlin are.  Therefore, I admit that you might assume them to be trying
to act as altruists, providing you are willing to admit that a bad result
may issue from a good philosophy.  Ca va?

Tom wishes me to provide an explanation of existentialism, and why it is
not anti-human/anti-life.  Existentialism is a complex philosophy.  I assumed 
that you would be familiar with the it.  My fault.  I will try to summarize,
although I suspect I will probably leave things out:
   Existentialism claims that all things are inherently possible.  
   Existence precedes essence; what you are is in no way determined
   before you are born.  All influences in the world are of equal
   non-importance.  It is *you* who gives the meaning to the things
   in the world, without you, the alarm clock means nothing.  If 
   you choose to ignore it, the "DON'T WALK ON THE GRASS SIGN" is
   just paint and wood.  Your values (which you have selected and
   assigned to things in the world) are expressed through your
   fundamental project.  This project defines you and all your
   relationships with the world.  It is (in principle) possible
   to change your fundamental project at any time.  It is not
   easy, since it means abandoning every value that you hold.
   If everything was peachy, people would all determine their
   own projects freely.  However, there exist in the world many
   influences upon you.  These come from other people (things 
   only influence you indirectly).  This process is an unavoidable
   consequence of living in a society.  Your parents begin it as 
   soon as you are born.  These outside influences seek to shape 
   your fundamental project.  Any time you bend to these external
   pressures, you are not expressing yourself.  You are in a 
   mental state called "bad faith."  It is not sensical to talk of
   "good" or "bad" outside influences, since it is YOU who must
   determine what is good or bad.  The only opposite of bad
   faith is "authenticity," a state where your values are derived
   solely from within.  This state is what we can (not must, 
   although Sartre implies that he thinks we should)
   strive for.  This expresses the concept of existential "total
   freedom."  However, existentialism also places a heavy burden
   on you.  Since YOU have determined the values in the world, it
   is YOU who must take the responsibility.  You cannot say "Well,
   I had to do it."  There is no 'had to.'  You CHOSE to do it,
   so you are responsible.  Lastly, there is no God, no hell, no
   heaven, no afterlife.  All you have is your own life, and it is
   up to you to make it be what you want it to be.

Whew!  I'm sorry to be so long-winded, but that barely scratches the surface
of the philosophy.  I'm sure you'll have questions, which I'll try to answer.
One important thing to remember, though, is that existentialism is a 
*descriptive* philosophy, not a normative one.  It describes the way Sartre
(and others) see human existence NOW, as it is.  As I've said elsewhere (in
my Kant articles), I think that this sort of philosophy is much more
palatable than normative ones.

	You make the claim that 'there is no such thing as 
	the "nature of the human mind"', and support it 
	*apparently* (you say "see above") on the basis
	that there are modern philosophies such as 
	existentialism that *claim* that there is not such 
	thing.  Do I need to point out that a *claim* is 
	not *proof* that there is not such thing?  What 
	evidence do those philosophies offer in support of 
	that conclusion?  
	
As I've said before, such claims cannot be proven (see above and below).
Sartre (in Being and Nothingness) actually takes a stab at this, but it takes
over two hundred pages, and I must confess that I don't understand it

	The fundamental nature of a human mind, as opposed 
	to an animal mind, is its ability to be rational - 
	to form consistent concepts and to initiate action 
	upon them.

Now you are doing exactly what you accuse me of!  This is *your* claim.
Where is *your* proof?  Of course that's rhetorical, since you really 
can't answer, unless you say that X is a property of human minds, and
if minds don't have property X, they're not human.  This, however, is
proof by definition.

	I did not mean to imply that one could not 
	be rational in some areas without being an 
	Objectivist - merely that if one were not 
	rational in some area, Objectism would benefit 
	one there.  
	
Hmm.  All right, I consider that my dislike for certain pieces of classical
music is irrational.  Please explain how objectivism will help when I 
consider a symphony I have never heard before.

Tom completely sidesteps the question of how one can rank countries 
with respect to altruism.  I agree that no absolute measuring system is
needed.  Please provide a relative one.  (By the way, when I said "absolute,"
what I mean was "not subject to the prejudices of the ranker."  When you rank
people by height without first measuring them, you are making an absolute
ranking, since anyone who knew what "height" meant would make the same ranking.)

	You will have to tell me what is so inobvious about 
	the idea that there is a causal connection between 
	one's philosophy and one's actions, and that this 
	implies that bad actions *can* and *frequently do* 
	mean a bad philosophy, rather than a "bad implementation".

You're correct.  However, it was you who said something along the lines of 
(referring to Rand's book on Russia) 'describes what she saw there [Russia]
which was altruism in action.'  (I'm sorry I can't find the original article
now.)  My counter-claim was that this was too strong.  There is no NECESSARY
connection between motivating philosophy and resulting actions.

	You claim that you can "point to literally dozens of 
	cases where the Soviets ... violate the principles of 
	altruism.  Be my guest!  
	
Surely:  every Russian athlete receives enormous preferences and benefits,
despite the fact that they make no greater tangible contribution to benefit
others than any other Russian citizen does.  Ditto that for party members.
Each and every instance of favoritism is a violation of the principles of
altruism.  If you really want to see altruism in action, visit an Israeli
kibbutz (one of the original ones, not the government founded ones!).  I
know people who were born and raised in one such place.

	...neither they [the boys in my example], nor capitalism 
	should be blamed - the father was a "victim of circumstances".   
	
However, under a non-capitalist system, there would have been some form
of guaranteed, institutional help for the man.  In the sense that 
capitalism does not have any mechanism to help him, he is a victim.  As
for the sons joining ROTC as not being capitalistic, I have always been
under the impression that capitalists felt that they should fight to 
defend themselves against communism.  That is why we got involved in
Vietnam, isn't it?

Tom, you said exactly the following:
		"And even so, why do you assume that  the
		boys are responsible for their father?  You
		did not mention any agreement between them."

My response, which you misinterpreted, can be restated:  I consider it
unnecessary for any explicit agreement to exist.  I consider it to be a
fact of caring that sons will be responsible for their father when he is 
too old to care for himself.  I then made the statement (which I probably 
ought not to have made) that if you considered an explicit agreement (of
the sort you mentioned) necessary, then I considered you morally
reprehensible.  Your latest article makes it seem that *I* am the one
who called for an explicit agreement for the boys to be responsible.  This
is simply not the case.

	You claim that the man would be a "vulture, feeding 
	off the corpses of his sons" if he insured them.  So 
	all those widows and orphans and widowers out there 
	are vultures because they had the foresight or good 
	fortune to have a loved one insured?  
	
Most of those widowers &c are benefiting because the DECEASED had the sense
to insure him/herself, and named them as beneficiaries.  My father has life
insurance that names me as beneficiary.  But I would feel distinctly creepy 
if he took out insurance on ME with himself as beneficiary.  If I knew that
others depended upon me in some way, I might take out insurance on myself
with them as beneficiaries.  

I hope I've answered the objections you raised.
--Alan Wexelblat
decvax!ittvax!wex